The Bush administration wants us to understand that the invasion of Iraq is not an American, or even a US-UK war. According to the American Forces' Press Service, "the number of countries willing to be part of disarming Saddam Hussein gives the lie to the charge that US action is unilateral, according to State Department officials.
There are 30 countries who have agreed to join the US in the 'coalition of the willing' to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."
Another 15 countries have privately assured the US of their backing, "but for internal political reasons cannot be open about their support." They include, no doubt, our own green and pleasant land and Arab countries such as Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia which, even though they are obviously providing vital military assistance, are not listed among the official members of the coalition.
Let's take this claim at face value. The war is a genuinely international effort. Iraq is being invaded by an alliance of 45 states. Let's look at some of the acknowledged components of this alliance. And, just to make sure that we are not tainted by the slightest tincture of anti-American prejudice, let's use a source with which the Bush administration cannot argue: the CIA.
What does the CIA World Factbook have to say about some of the members of the coalition? Some are unquestionably liberal democracies: Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, the UK, Spain, Poland and so on. Whatever their failures, they are broadly speaking open societies with basic standards of human rights and civic freedom.
Many, however, are not. Here is what the CIA has to say about some of the members of the freedom-loving alliance:
Afghanistan: Elections may be held by June 2004. "In addition to occasionally violent political jockeying and ongoing military action to root out remaining terrorists and Taliban elements, the country suffers from enormous poverty, a crumbling infrastructure, and widespread land mines."
Albania: The transition to democracy "has proven difficult as corrupt governments have tried to deal with high unemployment, a dilapidated infrastructure, widespread gangsterism, and disruptive political opponents."
Azerbaijan: "Corruption is ubiquitous, and the promise of widespread wealth from Azerbaijan's undeveloped petroleum resources remains largely unfulfilled."
Colombia: "Large swaths of the countryside are under guerrilla influence . . . An anti-insurgent army of paramilitaries has grown to be several thousand strong in recent years, challenging the insurgents for control of territory and illicit industries such as the drug trade and the government's ability to exert its dominion over rural areas."
Eritrea: "a National Assembly, composed entirely of the People's Front for Democracy and Justice or PFDJ, was established as a transitional legislature; the constitution, ratified in May 1997, did not enter into effect . . . Parliamentary elections had been scheduled to take place in December 2001, but were postponed; currently the sole legal party is the PFDJ."
Georgia: "Ethnic separation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, poor governance, and Russian military bases deny the government effective control over the entirety of the state's internationally recognised territory."
Kuwait: "Elections: none; the monarch is hereditary; prime minister and deputy prime ministers appointed by the monarch."
Qatar: "Traditional monarchy. . . no elections have been held since 1970, when there were partial elections . . . political parties: none".
Saudi Arabia: "The monarch is both the chief of state and head of government . . . elections: none; the monarch is hereditary . . . political parties: none allowed."
Turkey: "Illegal occupation of Northern Cyprus, a military veto over the elected government, some political parties banned."
Uzbekistan: "Current concerns include . . . the curtailment of human rights and democratisation . . . authoritarian presidential rule . . ."
All these comments are extremely mild in comparison with what could be garnered from reports from independent human rights groups. Just last month, for example, Amnesty International published a shocking report on the sexual torture of women political prisoners in Turkey. Just over a week ago, in Saudi Arabia, 14 young girls were burned to death in Mecca when the religious police would not allow them to escape a burning building because they were not wearing headscarves. A few days before the war began, Amnesty reported of coalition member Colombia that"widespread and systematic violations of human rights by the security forces and their paramilitary allies" are continuing.
So what right has a coalition that includes these torturers, rapists and murderers to claim, as George Bush has repeatedly done, that it is now fighting "to save the civilised world"?